officer has the r

ight to question the Judgment of this court If the court is In error as to any matter, an application must be made to the court for its correction. While the respondent Davis is guilty of contempt for not rendering unquestioning obedience to the order of the exercise of the power of eminent domain: Provided further, that before any railroad corporation organized under the laws of any other state or territory or of the United States shhttp://www.todsoutlet-sale.com all be permitted to avail Itself of the benefits of this act, such corporation shall file with the secretary of state a true copy of Its charter or articles of incorporation. The part of section , the validity of which is brought in question, is the following: The secretary of state, for services performed in his office, must charge and collect the following fees:iv. For recording and filing each certificate of incorporation and each certificate of increase of capital stock, the following amounts shall be charged: Amounts up to $ fifty cents per thousand dollars. Additional from $, to $ forty cents per thousand dollars. Additional from $, to $ thirty cents per thousand dollars. Additional from $, to $, twenty cents per thousand dollars. Additional over $, ten cents per thousand dollars. X. For filing each certified copy of charter or articles of incorporation of any foreign corporation, the same fee shall be charged as Is provided for in article IV of this section, for domestic corporations.The question submitted for' decision is whether sectionis invalid for either or both reasons assigned by the plaintiff. In support of their contentions counsel for plaintiff cite Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Tods Shoes Sale Kansas,U. SSup. Ct ,L. Ed later approved by the same court in Pullman Co. v. State of Kansas,U. SSup. Ct ,L. Ed Ludwlg v. Western Union Telegraph CoU. SSup. Ct ,L. Ed and InteTods Shoes rnational TextBook Co. v. Pigg,U. SSup. Ct ,L. EdTods Outlet L E. A. N, SAnn. Cas. . These cases, particularly the first, are directly In point In the first there was brought In question the validity of a provision of the General Laws of the state of Kansas, which, besides requiring a corporation seeking to engage in business In the state of Kansas, after having secured permission from the state charter board upon formal application made for that purpose, also required It to pay to the state treasurer of Kansas, for the benefit of the permanent school fund, a charter fee of onetenth of one per cent of ItTods Online s authorized capital upon the first one hundred thousand dollars of its capital stock, or any part thereof; and upon the next four hundred thousand dollars, or any part thereof, onetwentieth of one per cent; and for each million or major portion thereof over and above the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, two hundred dollars. General Statutes Kansas ,. In an elaborate opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan, in which there is an extencourt upon the same or analogous questions, the conclusion was reached that it Is not competent for a state Legislature to require a foreign corporation engaged in Interstate commerce, as a condition precedent to its beginning or continuing to do business in that state, to pay a given per cent of Its capital stock, representing all of its business everywhere within and outside of the state, becauseIt operates as a burden and tax on the Interstate business of the corporation, in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution, andbecause it is a tax upon the property of the corporation beyond the limits of the state, Inconsistent with the due process of law enjoined by the fourteenth amendmentIt is true that the method prescribed for ascertaining the tax Imposed by section , supra, Is a charge of a fixed number of cents per $, of the par value of the capital stock, graduated in proportion to the amount of the capital stock; whereas, under the Kansas statute, up to $, It was to be calculated by a graduated percentage, and thereafter at a uniform fixed sum per $. This divergence In method, however, Is immaterial. The vice of such legislation, as the reasoning of the court shows, consists in the nature of the burden Imposed by it and not In the amount The

71